In part the whole ugandan aids thing got me thinking again on the US approach to AIDS. And I posted my thoughts in some journal that I can no longer find (temporarily can’t access the right email account. Cursed umn mail system).
But I thought I’d repeat them here, briefly, to see what others think.
The information provided is largely technical in nature, and, if anything, emphasizes condoms as the road to salvation. Further, there’s a rather nasty sort of blame-the-victim logic. Basically, if you didn’t use a condom, you were stupid, and therefore deserve what you got. Anyone attempting to discuss anyone’s responsibility, other than to use a condom (and tell the truth), is essentially shouted down as being anti-sex.
Look, sex still happens, and condoms aren’t the only effective way to slow the spread of HIV. And telling people the dry, clinical facts, while providing a modestly inconvenient technical solution will provide little in the way of behavior change, even towards the use of that technical solution.
Glorifying waiting for sex, sexual fidelity, less contagion provoking forms of sexual activity (mutual masturbation, frottage, oral sex, etc), and maybe even villifying the insane barebacking, crystal users a bit would be a good thing. Note, not explaining, I’m talking about going for emotions, glorifying and villifying. Turn it into an unabashed morality play, and you reach alot more people.
Also, the notion of thinking of the welfare of not just your own damn selfish ass, but the welfare of something a bit larger than ourselves. Of our sex partners, of our community, and of humanity as a whole might actually go somewhere towards reducing the impact of the problem on society as a whole. Call me crazy.
I think the fact you can’t villify the barebacking/crystal using crowd is insane. The “you can do whatever you want as long as you use a condom” people who seem to have all the political power in the gay community really need to look in the mirror. Recently, a city (I think it was NYC) tried a billboard campaign that went after crystal users. The city’s gay advocates went nuts and had all the signs taken down and complained about being judged and not having the community consulted. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who think that gay people should be as hedonistic as possible and that even questioning this behavior is wrong. So, what if their behavior leads to the spread of std’s and adversely affects their health. It’s all nutty.
Meth ads.
I work on the demilitarized zone between Chelsea and Midtown, and I occasionally walk south to catch the L directly on 14th instead of taking a one-stop train from 23rd. It’s amazing, how immediately after crossing 23rd, all of the sudden everything is GAY—most noticeably, the advertisements on the sides of phone booths, etc. I digress … but I do remember a group of ads that were there over the summer with “Gay Pride 19somethingorother” and showing an innocuous picture with rainbow flags and the like, and then “Gay Pride 2004” showing some dude sitting at his computer in a run down apartment with a pipe (or however one does meth). There was some byline about crystal usage and the upsurge in STDs, specifically gonorrhea.
I don’t remember hearing any upcry about it, but, let’s face it, I don’t usually have my ear to the ground on that stuff, and I’m pretty out of touch with the gay scene here in the city, anyway. The ads affected me, though.
There have been lots of problems with trying to get the word out about AIDS. I remember there being a pretty edgy billboard campaign in Columbus right before I left about barebacking and using decapitated (figuratively, not literally) twinks saying stuff like, “I won’t get it because I’m a top,” and other similarly sexually oriented phrases. I fielded lots of questions about the ads from my straight co-workers and friends, and I thought Columbus was really beginning to shape up as a progressive city … but then I read in the local independent about how everyone was having a cow about the ads and how they weren’t even being accepted by the gay community.
I’m not sure how I feel about the whole issue. I have engaged in unsafe sexual practices before, and I got lucky. The problem is that, as mentioned previously in another post, gay courting is wildly different than straight courting. Males are insanely more sexually charged than females, hence when two mutually attracted males get together, IMO, it’s all they can do to not fuck. AIDS and images of AIDS suffering have been pushed to the back of everyone’s minds—gone are the pictures of festering sores on young twinks, and the pallid near-death gazes that one saw in the 80’s. Now, it’s just another four letter word. How many of the younger generation (under 24ish) even remember AIDS as an epidemic, or have seen actual pictures of afflicted individuals? I hardly remember it at all, and I’m nearly 27 and paid attention when I was a kid.
Maybe the question to be asked is not so much about how one gets the disease, but showing what the disease does to your body. Fags are much more likely to respond to the deathly-ill smile of an AIDS afflicted “cute twink” than they are an admonition to “be safe, use a condom”.
I’m usually against it, but fear does work; especially in situations where the truth really *is* out there. I dunno. Just an insomniac’s two cents.
Re: Meth ads.
I chuckled at the insomniac line. When I saw who commented on my comment, I asked myself what in the world he’s doing up now. Anyway, back to your points. I know I’m in the minority. But, I was scared shitless about AIDS. I am a few years older than you and I remember vividly when AIDS first hit. Naturally, I was also coming into my own and figured out I was gay. Unfortunately, my fears got the best of me and I did everything in my power not to have sex. You can count the number of partners I’ve had on one hand. So, fear worked on me. But, I really don’t think it’d work on most people though. Plus, not everyone will be as luck as I am to fall into a relationship at a relatively early age. Nor, want to. But, I do agree that it is next to impossible to not have sex when both parties are sexually attracted to one another. That’s one of the great things about being gay.
Hmmm. I’m not really sure this is a response other than to say fear worked on me. Eh. Still, I do prefer the shock ads that hopefully will knock some sense into some people.
Re: Meth ads.
Ahh, the holidays just promote my 32-hour biological clock that I’m not able to tame.
Fear worked well on me. Drugs and sex. Part of me is amazed that I’ve turned out the way that I have, accepting other vantage points and seeing the truth about drugs and sex on my own, the dangers and the attractions. I owe this to my parents. Scared me shitless as a kid, but then taught me to find my own way.
But then again, it’s all in question again, as per my latest entry. *sigh*
Re: Meth ads.
The problem is that, as mentioned previously in another post, gay courting is wildly different than straight courting.
are you sure about this? i mean, there are certainly prominent examples which point in that direction, but aren’t there enough counter-examples that such a generalization isn’t really helpful?
or does ‘the problem’ only exist in that particular subculture? i think it probably exists in the heterosexual quick-hookup subcultures as well…
(the counter-examples being the non-promiscuous gay men, and the very promiscuous hetero women, of which there are many – i just checked with some women to make sure 😉
don’t mean to start a flame war – i’m trying to validly discuss things here. so please don’t take it that way.
FLAME WARS!
Ahhh, just kidding.
You’re right, it is a rather large assumption only perpetuated by our society’s view on gays. There are certainly any number of counter-examples to be had in all substrata of the population, surely not just the homosexshuls.
And, I personally would never start a flame war. I’m waaay too passive-aggressive. Besides, I was up all night and I have even less energy today than normal.
Discuss away, I should’ve stuck to the original premise of my post, which was just to validate that there actually was some sort of campaign on NYC streets regarding crystal meth usage, but then I got carried away, cause it was yestertoday.
babble babble babble …
Interesting, I hadn’t heard about the NYC campaign.
Here in the bay area, for the past month or so, there have been anti-crystal PSA posters up in the Castro subway station, and a billboard or two around Market and Soma. I haven’t heard any outcry to tear them down.
I agree. And if I may expand on one issue a bit more: AIDS will only be resolved if and when *all* the behaviors that compromise immunity are honestly addressed.
Drugs like cocaine, crystal meth and poppers are devastating to the immune system. Amphetamines lower appetite and thus in the long term cause malnutrition. Recreational drugs are anything but recreational. They don’t just “impair judgement”.
Many commonly used lubes are highly toxic, and FDA-approved for “external use only”. There is almost no awareness in the gay community that many bottoms are slowly poisoning themselves by putting substances into their bodies that are cosmetics which are only meant for external use.
Alcoholism and smoking are epidemic among gay people. Both damage immunity.
Chronic sleep deprivation, a common side effect of the party lifestyle, has a profoundly negative effect on one’s immune system.
Frequent exposure to STDs are a double liability as far as health is concerned. The microbes are burden on the immune system. Antibiotics prescribed to kill them compromise one’s health further. If the infection is rectal, which is usually the case for bottoms, it will also cause malabsorption and wasting, and so will antibiotics.
AIDS educators are in complete denial as far as these risk factors are concerned. Their message is, “as long as you use condoms, you can take drugs and party your brains out”. As long as this doesn’t change, and AIDS educators give permission to gay men to destroy their health, AIDS is going to stay with us.
I agree that emotionless appeals have gone as far as they’re going to go in preventing the transmission of HIV, and if we’re going to make more progress, we need to try something different.
It makes me uncomfortable to read your call for an “unabashed morality play,” however. To me, that’s the domain of the religious right, and they can keep it.
When I think about what factored into my philosophy on safer sex for myself, it’s hard to say. Somewhere along the way I got the message. I think a lot of factors go into it. The scientific facts did do a lot for me…but that’s the way my mind works. I also think self-esteem has a LOT to do with it. The fact that I care about myself makes me want to do whatever I can to ensure that I’m going to be around a long time. And fear is part of it too…I don’t want to die of a horrible disease, and I don’t want the social stigma that goes along with it.
Nevertheless, I also know that when I envision the ideal sexual encounter, it involves me being a bottom (with a condom). I don’t think anybody’s call to engage in a “less contagion-provoking form of sexual activity” would change that…especially if it were based on morality (i.e. you’re a bad person because you’re not content just to jerk someone off).
I agree that we need to be very vocal in speaking out against barebacking. I think we’re just beginning to understand that mentality…and I don’t think insanity or meth use explains it completely. I’m sure you realize that.
I hope you continue posting your ideas on this topic. I certainly agree with your last paragraph and I think that if everyone were on board, it would make a huge difference.